A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) provided workers with more time more than the worker’s assertion; and (b) provided each year cash in the name of the subsidies and retirement allowances.

Considering these points, the amount of wages and retirement allowances actually paid by the defendant is different from the facts of the decision of the court below, and in particular, wages paid to workers J and K below the minimum wage.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant, which was unfair, is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts refers to the hours during which an employee completely impedes the employer’s command during his working hours and guarantees free use (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da20548, Apr. 14, 1992). In addition, the working hours under the Labor Standards Act refer to the hours during which an employee provides labor under a contract under the employer’s command and supervision. However, the court below rejected the Defendant’s allegation that the Defendant and the defense counsel were guilty on the grounds that the Defendant alleged in this part of the charges, inasmuch as the employee did not actually engage in work during his working hours, even if he did not guarantee free use as a part of his working hours, and is placed under the employer’s direction and supervision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da41990, Nov. 23, 2006).

In addition to the following circumstances admitted by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, we examine the following circumstances.